This is a slice of my philosophical, lay scientific, musical, religious skepticism, and poetic musings. (All poems are my own.)
The science and philosophy side meet in my study of cognitive philosophy; Dan Dennett was the first serious influence on me, but I've moved beyond him.
The poems are somewhat related, as many are on philosophical or psychological themes. That includes existentialism and questions of selfhood, death, and more. Nature and other poems will also show up here on occasion.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

P.Z. Myers, aka Pharyngula, gives space to "Jesus mythicist" Richard
Carrier for bashing liberal Jesus scholar Bart Ehrman, who is somewhere
between deism and agnosticism himself, for nothing more than upholding
the historicity of Jesus.

And, in return, self-appointed defender of secular humanism against the hordes of Gnu Atheism R. Joseph Hoffmann, bashes Myers, Carrier, and "mythicism" (a term I reject as much as "accommodationism" when used by Gnus).

And,
I've come to the conclusion that what we have is Carrier and Ehrman
(we'll see what reply Ehrman may have to Carrier) as authors of dueling
books with dueling propositions. Between their stances, there is no room
for compromise.

And, above that level, we have Myers
willing to give a platform to anyone who might advance the Gnu Atheist
agenda and help recruit cadres (his Chairman Mao word from a couple of
years ago), while Hoffmann, in part because he's a Jesus historicist,
sees P.Z.'s "using" of Carrier as another excuse to attack him.

First, my reply to Hoffmann, since I just wrote it;

I
disagree with your take on mythicism, starting with the word. (That
said, I'm not a Gnu by any means.) Were I to offer Bayesian-like odds,
based on current levels of scholarship, I'd offer 10 percent odds, maybe
20 percent, that Yeshua bar Yusuf never lived. In other words, high
enough probability for it to be legitimate discussion. That said, PZ is
really ridiculous here. While Ehrman believes in the actual existence of
Jesus, he's always, from what I've seen, been cordial about the issue.
And, I know that from personal experience

And, quoting Paul? The
only thing he says in an authentic letter is that Jesus was "born of a
woman." That says nothing about his historicity, and could be
interpreted as nothing more than an anti-Gnostic statement. [Calling
James "the brother of the Lord" can be seen as nothing but stating his
leadership in the Christian movement.]

Q? Q says nothing
historically grounded about Jesus' existence other than his baptism, and
thousands of people were baptized by him. [Q is the putative source
behind the wisdom sayings of Jesus common to Matthew and Luke.]

As
for mentions of Caiphas, etc.? Well, Matthew mentions a likely
non-historic "massacre of infants." Mark has no birth account. Luke of
course botches the historicity of Jesus' birth and in a royal way,
enough to argue AGAINST anything else he claims that is alleged to be
historical.

Besides, as I've said, there's option 3: Yeshua was
the Pharasaic Yeshua crucified by Alexander Jannai. That gives more than
a century for the myth to develop and the history to be replaced.

And, yes, I believe that is at least in the 5 percent range, if not 10 percent. So, let's discuss it more.

Second, let's look at what Carrier says.
The reality? Hoffmann overstates Carrier's tone vis-a-vis Ehrman, and
ignores some of Ehrman's own tone in his original article. Carrier notes
he has appreciated Ehrman's previous books, and even that many
mythicists of the past have been kind of nutso. Otherwise, it's a
general arguement against some of Ehrman's claims for historicity.

And, , yes, Ehrman DOES overstate his case.
And, per my comment to Hoffmann, does so with a vitriol I've not seen
from him before. Although, from what I've read, Carrier's now book-to-be
is probably very overrated, Ehrman's, which I want to read, may well
be, too.

And, just as Myers and his ilk are ruining the
word "atheist," Gnu or otherwise, Hoffman and his "acoylte," Steph, are
coming closer to ruin the phrase "secular humanism."

Monday, April 09, 2012

John Horgan just nailed it.
And just "nailed" Sam Harris. He's the modern day version of B.F.
Skinner in his ardent, even strident, denials of the existence of free
will:

He is a throwback to the old behaviorists, who pretended that
subjective, mental phenomena—because they are more difficult to observe
and measure than planets and protons—don’t exist.

And, if that's not enough, Horgan fires both barrels, again, with perfect accuracy:

Dwelling on Harris depresses me. All that brainpower and training
dedicated to promulgating such bad ideas! He reminds me of one of the
brightest students I’ve ever had, who was possessed by an adamant,
unshakable belief in young-earth creationism. I did my best to change
his mind, but I never succeeded. I probably won’t change the minds of
Sam Harris and other hard-core determinists either, but it’s worth a
shot.

Now, not all Gnu Atheists reject free will, but it's getting to be an
ever-more-common stance. And, Horgan's first comment, at least, is
applicable to them, too.

That said, Harris is also, per Horgan, a kind of voyeuristic thrill to watch digging ever deeper into the same holes. I'll probably engage in more of it, tho not to the point of spending money on a 96-page "book."

My own thoughts on how free will VERSUS determinism is a totally false dichotomy are here.